When a tank runs into something, that something should die.

[jshandorf]

Hey, all.

I was just thinking. In the off chance that you actually get to run your tank into an enemy HT, truck, or even a jeep. Shouldn't your tank be able to drive over them and crush them?

I know you can't graphically model this but in essence what you could do is that when your tank runs into the offending enemy vehicle that vehicle just abandons immediately. That would kind of make sense to me.

Oh and this is for when you run into ENEMY vehicles not friendly ones.

Thoughts?

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[Croda]

Why would friendly vehicles be impervious to this? I think the idea is great, but it would have to work both ways.

Although, you would need to take into account the vehicles weight or something, so you know who is damaged when 2 tanks collide, or 2 HTs, or a jeep runs full speed into the side of a think-armored TD. There's a lot to be considered.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[mensch]

I agree.. if your Tank runs into a falling 300mm Ricket.. it should die. Muhahahahahhahahaahahhahaha

[Hamstersss]

It is true that tank-running-over-jeep/infantry/etc should be modelled, but it's not like it happened a lot (Regardless of what the German Panzer manuals might suggest) and it's absence isn't that big a deal. I'd rather see a Sturmtiger first.

------------------

Fionn has his rule of 76, I have mine. Mine is much simpler, I get to buy whatever I want ... you get 76 points.

-Joe Shaw

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Croda:

Why would friendly vehicles be impervious to this? I think the idea is great, but it would have to work both ways.

Although, you would need to take into account the vehicles weight or something, so you know who is damaged when 2 tanks collide, or 2 HTs, or a jeep runs full speed into the side of a think-armored TD. There's a lot to be considered.

I disagree. I would think that the commander or driver would know better then to run over thier own guys. But hey, I have seen how you treat your digital men, Croda, so I geuss I see your point.

That is why you can run guys through vehicles and vice versa if they are on the move. It is assumed that they, ya know, get out of the way.

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[Croda]

Don't get wise with me, little man. You may have won on that wide front with no good axis of advance, but the next round, I have some surprises for your 2nd Panzer.

My point was one of friendly fire. Accidents happen in the chaos of a firefight. It is very easy for 2 tanks to run into each other in a smoke barrage, or for the 2nd of two fast moving tanks to run into the first if it were knocked out and suddenly slowed. If you model it one way you have to model it both, and I think speed and weight have a lot to do with the equation.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Croda:

Don't get wise with me, little man. You may have won on that wide front with no good axis of advance, but the next round, I have some surprises for your 2nd Panzer.

My point was one of friendly fire. Accidents happen in the chaos of a firefight. It is very easy for 2 tanks to run into each other in a smoke barrage, or for the 2nd of two fast moving tanks to run into the first if it were knocked out and suddenly slowed. If you model it one way you have to model it both, and I think speed and weight have a lot to do with the equation.

I suppose if your battle field looked like some bumper car ride. But in general I think friendly vehicles ran into each other during battle ALOT less often than enemy tanks INTENTIONALLY running over enemy vehicles.

My Waffen SS 2nd Panzer division will crush you. Muahahahahah... Don't think for a second that I don't realize you bought like 1500 points in AT guns.

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[Thimoty]

Odly enough, I once saw something similar to this.

In a hotseat game, in that small city scenario, where you get a priest and a tank, my opponent spotted my gun. Instead of shooting at it, or driving away, he drove it hugging my gun. Then: boom! The gun gets killed. I didn't see a shot from the tank, but it may be possible the machineguns got it. Still, it's odd...

------------------

Gilthoniel A Elbereth!

A Elbereth Gilthoniel

o menel palan-diriel,

le nallon sí di'nguruthos!

A tiro nin, Fanuilos!

[Leonidas]

If you start modeling these things too accurately, there's no telling where to stop. I would think that real tanker don't routinely ram their tanks into other vehicles on purpose. There's too much risk of damage to the heavier tank, even if it totals the lighter vehicle. On the other hand, AFVs that are knocked out while moving fast can coast along for quite a ways, so maybe in that case you could have some ramming damage.

And ramming AFVs, if they were modeled, wouldn't just be limited to vehicle-on-vehicle collisions. I suppose you could run over infantry, though of course the infantry would try to avoid this. Maybe being in the path of a moving AFV would produce a major morale/cohesion hit with minimal casualties, something like FTs do now. This would reflect that while men can generally avoid a moving vehicle (especially the relatively slow-moving vehicles of WWII), I doubt they could do so while maintaining unit cohesion.

And don't forget AFVs ramming buildings. I've heard of tanks being used as rams to tear down buildings, though I can't vouch for the historical accuracy. Again, I would expect tankers to want to protect their machinery. Still, you would think that a runaway Sherman Jumbo traveling at top speed could probably flatten a wood-frame chateau.

But there are dangers to the tank that aren't modeled in CM either. I'm playing a Mortain PBEM as the attacker right now. I'm advancing a tank column down a road lined with trees and bocage. My opponent has some fairly large caliber arty off-map, and each battle he makes some big craters in the road, trying to weaken my infantry screen. After the infantry have cleared the path. I feel a bit guilty watching my tanks drive down that heavily cratered road with no apparent loss of speed or chance of immobilization. I have also never seen a tank become immobilized in a foxhole. And of course you can't even dig anti-tank ditches.

I'm not saying that any of this would contribute enough to the game to justify the time and effort that would be required for implementing it. It's just interesting to muse on how tanks might be modeled a little more accurately.

[Michael Dorosh]

Where would you get data in order to accurately model this?

I sincerely doubt a tank could crush a half track, but then again, how would anyone know?

I think infantry should suffer some form of shock penalty for infantry from an overrun by armour (weighted to take timeframe, national characteristics, training etc. into account), but I suspect causing casualties by putting men under the tracks was fairly rare and uncommon, and I will bet BTS had considered this but jettisoned it as too cumbersome to implement realistically. I still contend that German infantry in 1943 or 1944 (especially front line outfits like GD, Panzer Lehr, etc.) would be less likely to panic when being directly overrun than say Belgian infantry in 1940.

As the last couple of posts show, this is a complex issue. I am glad they got the pushing of vehicles correct though! Crushing other vehicles was sufficiently rare that I don't miss its exclusion. Overrunning infantry would be nice to see at some future point in time.

------------------

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Where would you get data in order to accurately model this?

I sincerely doubt a tank could crush a half track, but then again, how would anyone know?

I think infantry should suffer some form of shock penalty for infantry from an overrun by armour (weighted to take timeframe, national characteristics, training etc. into account), but I suspect causing casualties by putting men under the tracks was fairly rare and uncommon, and I will bet BTS had considered this but jettisoned it as too cumbersome to implement realistically. I still contend that German infantry in 1943 or 1944 (especially front line outfits like GD, Panzer Lehr, etc.) would be less likely to panic when being directly overrun than say Belgian infantry in 1940.

As the last couple of posts show, this is a complex issue. I am glad they got the pushing of vehicles correct though! Crushing other vehicles was sufficiently rare that I don't miss its exclusion. Overrunning infantry would be nice to see at some future point in time.

Your kidding, right? Are you telling me that a 30-40 ton tank can't drive over a HT? Now I am not talking dukes of hazard here I am talking about the slow ramming and eventual crushing of the vehicle.

Regardless.. Put it this way. Soldiers are in an immobilized HT. They look out the driver's window and over the side. They see a tank coming straight at them. It eventually rams the HT. Are you telling me that ALL the men wouldn't abandon? Get real.

I am NOT talking about total crushing here like some Monster truck rally. I am talking about the enemy vehicle being abandoned and in essence either crushed or just pushed out of the way. It doesn't matter.

Basically If a jeep and a tank collide head on in the night in the fog the jeep should die. Right now it won't. I think this is something pretty simple to model.

Now I suppose tanks ramming tanks could happen but it would be very rare since their guns would have to be damaged for them to even get close to each other.

I think people in general get what I am talking about but then people jump in here and take things to the extreme and the absurd. Like asking where you can get the data on this.. Geezus.. This isn't ballistics and armor penetration. This is basically big heavy thingy with tracks crushes anything smaller and lighter. If it doesn't the guys driving the thing would bail out anyway. Wouldn't you?

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[Kingfish]

Gents,

Before we consider adding a ramming / crushing feature to the game I would kindly suggest we ask for a proper follow / convoy command first. Otherwise you might end up losing an entire armor column simply to the pile ups we get trying to move convoys down roads.

[Croda]

I get what you're talking about, and I agree. However, I don't think it can be done as easily as you think. Good idea and I think it can be put into place with the existing data structure (as if I really know anything about their data structure), but it needs to be a little more complicated than I think you're suggesting.

And by the way, I picked my TO&E for the defense with no idea what you'd be throwing at me. So you're facing a standard U.S. rifle battalion with support. As a matter of fact, that map was created for ScoutPL and Pillar to do a comparison on. They were both to set up using the standard U.S. Rifle Bn. I haven't heard back from Scout yet, and I don't think I ever got it off to Pillar, but I was dying to play it.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Your kidding, right? Are you telling me that a 30-40 ton tank can't drive over a HT? Now I am not talking dukes of hazard here I am talking about the slow ramming and eventual crushing of the vehicle.

Question is would you risk your track doing that?

[Guest wwb_99]

First off, I would suspect that tanks ran into friendly tanks alot more often than running into enemy tanks, for the simple reason that friendly tanks tended to be closer at hand.

Second, I think building crushing should be modeled. And it should be rather frequent, if my Panzer Elite experiences can be taken as accruate. One finds that one often runs into and over buildings after one has buttoned their tank.

Third, If I am a tanker running down a halftrack, I will spray it with the MGs. Running it over has too high a risk of bogging, not to mention exposes my soft underbelly.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Michael emrys]

One more thing to consider about all this is that when a tracked vehicle ran over any stout, rugged, non-flat object, there was a distinct possibility of breaking a track. Even running over a tree stump could do that. Breaking a track in the middle of a battlefield when a lot of people are shooting at you was a discomfort that prudent tankers tended to avoid.

Michael

[jshandorf]

Now don't get me wrong. People are starting think that this is some sort of viable attack. I am NOT saying that. I am not lobbying for this becuase I want to start ramming my tanks into other stuff. No way. I am bringing this up because of the off chance that this situation arises it should have some sort realistic resolution instead of say for example a tank pushing an enemy MG jeep backwards when it runs into it and meanwhile the MG jeeps fires madly away at the tank all the while.

In reality I would say that the jeep crew would abandon at the least.

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 02-27-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Your kidding, right? Are you telling me that a 30-40 ton tank can't drive over a HT? Now I am not talking dukes of hazard here I am talking about the slow ramming and eventual crushing of the vehicle.

Regardless.. Put it this way. Soldiers are in an immobilized HT. They look out the driver's window and over the side. They see a tank coming straight at them. It eventually rams the HT. Are you telling me that ALL the men wouldn't abandon? Get real.

I am NOT talking about total crushing here like some Monster truck rally. I am talking about the enemy vehicle being abandoned and in essence either crushed or just pushed out of the way. It doesn't matter.

Basically If a jeep and a tank collide head on in the night in the fog the jeep should die. Right now it won't. I think this is something pretty simple to model.

Now I suppose tanks ramming tanks could happen but it would be very rare since their guns would have to be damaged for them to even get close to each other.

I think people in general get what I am talking about but then people jump in here and take things to the extreme and the absurd. Like asking where you can get the data on this.. Geezus.. This isn't ballistics and armor penetration. This is basically big heavy thingy with tracks crushes anything smaller and lighter. If it doesn't the guys driving the thing would bail out anyway. Wouldn't you?

Jeff

I am politely trying to say that this is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a long time. First of all, why would you bother to run over a halftrack? Tanks are notoriously hard to maintain, and fixing a thrown track is a laborious process (I helped a friend put a new track on his Maultier halftrack - it required special tools and three men, and it took the better part of an evening - consider doing it with no spare parts and a bent pin, or waiting in enemy territory for 12 hours for your retrieval unit/LAD to come up and get your tank).

What tanker would consider a haltrack enough of a threat to risk ruining his vehicle by running it over?

Halftracks were usually empty when in contact anyway, as discussed at length before, except for the crew. Infantry DISMOUNTED TO FIGHT, and especially if enemy tanks were nearby! They would be safer in the ditch than in a big open box.

If you can cite even one historical reference to such an event occuring deliberately, I would love to read it.

EDIT - boss came in. I don't think flat armoured plate would be so easy for a tank to mount and crush, either - especially on flat ground! Would pay money to see this - know any vehicle restorers who would be willing to let us use their stuff for a test?

------------------

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-27-2001).]

[Croda]

Don't start changing your tune now, Jeffy-boy...

Now in reality Jeff is not advocating tank-ramming as an attack like John Wayne in a submarine in Operation Pacific. He is stating (I believe) that if a tank were to hit a smaller HT or such for any reason (smoke, night, stoopid) that real physics, which is the basis for this game, would have the tank damaging the smaller vehicle. I agree with him, though this certainly isn't a valid attack of any sort. Let's address our responses from that perspective.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 02-27-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Totally Hollywood.

Did occasional tankers too green to even know what their vehicles were for, occasionally confuse them with earth-moving machinery? Sure. And they broke sprocket wheels, threw whole treads, smashed "shoes" and track-sections.

Did they sometimes drive into buildings thinking they would knock them down? Yes, and they discovered the phenomenon of the "cellar", and that housebuilders do not build floors to carry 30 ton tanks.

I am reminded of an old war movie about Russian cossacks, where one big man while roaring drunk lifts his own horse, and afterward shouts "who but Ivan could carry his horse?" To which the quiet reply is, "who but an idiot would want to?"

If you want to break something, use the freaking gun, you nit-wit. That's what the darn thing is for. Believe me, it is a lot harder to get out of the way of a shell doing 750 m/s, than a tank doing 10 m/s. And you will not immobilize your tank, either.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I am politely trying to say that this is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a long time. First of all, why would you bother to run over a halftrack? Tanks are notoriously hard to maintain, and fixing a thrown track is a laborious process (I helped a friend put a new track on his Maultier halftrack - it required special tools and three men, and it took the better part of an evening - consider doing it with no spare parts and a bent pin, or waiting in enemy territory for 12 hours for your retrieval unit/LAD to come up and get your tank).

What tanker would consider a haltrack enough of a threat to risk ruining his vehicle by running it over?

Halftracks were usually empty when in contact anyway, as discussed at length before, except for the crew. Infantry DISMOUNTED TO FIGHT, and especially if enemy tanks were nearby! They would be safer in the ditch than in a big open box.

If you can cite even one historical reference to such an event occuring deliberately, I would love to read it.

Geezus... Are you just dim witted or what? The Problem I am addressing is that it CAN HAPPEN!!!! Bah!

There is another thread right now:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016699.html

where a JpIV and a jeep collided head on and as the tank pushed the jeep backwards the little jeep fried away madly with the MG and somehow killed the JPIV.

My point is.. THIS IS STUPID! If you were the two guys in the jeep the first thing you would have done when you relized that you had just ran head on into a JpIV would be to RUN LIKE HELL! Thus the jeep would abandon.

Kiriiist, Micheal, YOU must be stupid to think that I want this feature so I can start running my tanks around the board running over stuff.

If you would actually read people's posts before you reply to then you would maybe, just maybe, actually sound intelligent.

Jeff

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Croda:

Don't start changing your tune now, Jeffy-boy...

Now in reality Jeff is not advocating tank-ramming as an attack like John Wayne in a submarine in Operation Pacific. He is stating (I believe) that if a tank were to hit a smaller HT or such for any reason (smoke, night, stoopid) that real physics, which is the basis for this game, would have the tank damaging the smaller vehicle. I agree with him, though this certainly isn't a valid attack of any sort. Let's address our responses from that perspective.

From that perspective, yes, a tank will do a lot of damage to a halftrack. I notice out of control tanks do roll after being hit; this would be a good example of a tank contacting a halftrack. No doubt the HT would suffer damage; I am no more of an expert at this than any of you, and my best guess is that the damage would vary from slight to immobilizing. The HT would obviously not be crushed unless pinned up against a stone building, and my guess here, too, is that the building would give way before the HT did. Total conjecture though.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

In reality I would say that the jeep crew would abandon at the least.

Jeff

I couldn't agree more.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

If you would actually read people's posts before you reply to then you would maybe, just maybe, actually sound intelligent.

Jeff

As opposed to showering people with insults, which does SOOOO much for your image.

I don't think I need to prove my intelligence to anyone else here, least of all you.

Now back to the Peng thread where you belong, my boy, until you learn to play nice with others.

[jshandorf]

Or how about vehicles driving fast and buttoned in the fog or night? They can collide head on.

Also how about in town fighting? You tell your HT to race up the street and hang a left. As it drives up there is gets buttoned and then as it turns the corner it runs headon into a tank going the other way. What then?

Currently in the game now the tank will just push the other vehicle backwards until something else happens.

I am proposing that the HT just abandons, because that would be the closest thing to reality, atleast compared to what we have now.

Jeff

------------------

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.